A Vietnamese - American cross-cultural study on disparaging Nguyễn Thị Hồng Vân Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: M.A. Phan Thị Vân Quyên Năm bảo vệ: 2010 Keywords: Văn hóa Việt Nam; Văn hóa Mỹ; Giao văn hóa; Giao tiếp Content: PART A – INTRODUCTION 1. RATIONALE Vietnamese learners usually find it difficult to communicate appropriately in English with native speakers, especially American people despite their language competence. Shyness and lack of confidence are common problems facing Vietnamese learners. They sometimes even can not understand native speakers and feel uncomfortable to express themselves in particular situations. This partly originates from the lack of socio-cultural knowledge and interaction skills among Vietnamese learners. The differences between western and eastern culture can be referred to as a reason why Vietnamese learners often fail in communicating with native speakers. Asian learners are not familiar with western cultural norms. It is concluded that language and culture have a close relationship. Even an English-competent learner needs cultural knowledge of the target language to be successful in communication. Therefore, learning about the target culture, and especially the differences between the source and target cultures is an effective way for us to master the target language. Cultural knowledge will help us to avoid misunderstanding, culture shock and breakdown in communication. A number of studies have been carried out so far on English-Vietnamese cross-cultural pragmatics / communication by Vietnamese authors such as Conveying Good and Bad News (Quang, 1992), Requesting (Thanh, 2000), Apologizing and Responding to Apologies (Phuong, 1999), Requesting (Tam, 1998), Greeting (Suu, 1990; Nguyen, 1997), Advising (Le, 1999), Thanking and Responding to Thanks (Hoang, 1998), Refusing a Request (Quyen, 2001), Expressing Sympathy (Nga, 2003), Making Suggestions (Lam, 2004), Expressing Annoyance (Phung, 2006), Promising (Be, 2008), but no research has been conducted on disparaging. There is a good reason for the choice of this act because it is a face-threatening act. Therefore, it requires much sensitivity and cross-cultural awareness in order to gain effective communication without hurting the listeners. This research will hopefully provide learners as well as teachers and people working in intercultural environment with better understanding of the nature of this behavior across cultures and ability to reduce to the least negative effect on cross-cultural communication, and most importantly, to communicate safely and effectively. 2. AIMS OF THE STUDY  To investigate the way Vietnamese people and American people disparage in given situations  To clarify the most noteworthy similarities and differences in the ways Vietnamese and American people disparage in their own languages and cultures. 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The research plans to address the following questions: Question 1: How do American and Vietnamese people disparage in different situations and with different communicating partners? Question 2: What are the most noteworthy similarities and differences in the ways Vietnamese and American disparage in their own languages and cultures? 4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY  The thesis focuses on strategies of expressing disparagement in Vietnamese and American culture. Responding to disparagement is beyond the scope of this study.  The author is fully aware of the remarkable contribution of paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects of disparaging, however, they are not taken in to consideration.  The Vietnamese Northern dialect and American – English are chosen for contrastive analysis.  The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires both in English and Vietnamese, based on socially-differentiated situations in which disparagement takes place and three groups of informants in social, business, and family status. Recorded and video taped face-to- face conversations are impossible due to limitations of time, geographical distance and financial difficulties. 5. METHODOLOGY In order to achieve the objectives of the cross-cultural research, the main method of the study is survey research. All the considerations, comments and conclusions in this thesis are largely based on: - reference to relevant publications - survey questionnaires - statistics, description and analysis of the collected data - personal observation - consultation with supervisor - discussion with Vietnamese and foreign colleagues 6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY The thesis consists of three main parts: Part A: INTRODUCTION – All the academic routines required for an MA thesis are presented PART B: DEVELOPMENT – This is the focus of the study and consists of 3 chapters Chapter 1: Literature Review Chapter 2: Methodology of the study Chapter 3: Strategies of disparaging Part C: CONCLUSION: Review of the findings, implications and limitations of the study and some suggestions for further research. BIBLIOGRAPHY In English 1. Adler, P. 1972. Culture Shock and the Cross-Cultural Learning Experience. International Education Vol.2. 2. Austin J.L 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge University Press. 3. Bach, K. and Harnish, R. 1984. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. The MIT Press. 4. Bentahila, A. and Davies, E. 1998. Culture and Language Use. IRAL Journal, VOL. XXVII/2, MAY. 5. Blum Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and Apologies: a cross- Cultural Study of Speech Acts Realisation Patterns (CCSSARP). Applied Linguistics, Vol.5 – No 3. 6. Blum Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different? Journal of Pragmatics II. North Holland. 7. Bock, P.K.1970. Culture Shock. Alfred A. Knoff. Inc. 8. Brown, G. and Yule, G.1989. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press 9. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. 10. Byram, M. and Flemming, M. 1998. Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 11. Canale, M & M. Swains. 1980. Approaches to Communicative Competence. SEMEO Regional Language Centre. 12. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspect of theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. 13. Clyne, M. 1981. Culture and Discourse Structure. Journal of Pragmatics 3, pp.61-66 14. Cook, G. 1990. Discourse. Oxford University Press. 15. Conttrill, L. 1996. Face, Politeness and Directness. University of Canberra. 16. Crystal, D. 1996. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press. 17. Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 18. Ellis, C. 1996. Culture Shock! Vietnam. Times Editions Pte Ltd, Singapore. 19. Green, G.M. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. LEA. 20. Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 21. Gumper (in Wardhaugh, R.). 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Basil Blackwell. 22. Haines, S. and Steward, B. 1994. First Certificate Masterclass. Oxford University Press. 23. Hymes, D. 1996. Language in Culture and Society. Harper International Edition. 24. Hymes, D. 1978. On Communicative Competence. In J.B Dride and H.Holmes. 25. Kaplan, J. 1972. Cultural thought patterns. Intercultural Education in Language Learning, 16, pp. 1- 20. 26. Kasper, G. 1997. Linguistic Etiquette. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by Florian Coulams, Blackwell Publishers. 27. Keller, E. and Warner, S.T. 1998. Conversation Gambits. Language Teaching Publications, Canada. 28. Kramsh, C. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford University Press. 29. Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor – The University of Michigan Press. 30. Lakoff, R. 1997. What Can You Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives. 31. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman: London and NewYork. 32. Levine, D.R. and Adelman, M.B. 1993. Beyond Language – Intercultural Communication for English as a Second Language. Prentice Hall Regends. 33. Levine, D.R., Baxter, J. and McNulty, P. 1987. The Culture Puzzle – Cross Cultural Communication for English as a Second Language. Prentice Hall Regends. 34. Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press 35. Nguyen Quang. 1998. Intercultural Communication. VNU – CFL. 36. Porter, R. and Samovar, L.A. 1985. Intercultural Communication: A Reader (4 th edition). Belmont, Ca: Watsworth. 37. Prodromou, L. 1992. What culture? Which culture? Cross – Cultural Factors in Language Learning. 38. Searle, John R. (1965) “What is a Speech Act?” In The Philosophy of Language. Pp. 130-140. edited by A.P. Martinich, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 39. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. 40. Searle, John Rogers, 1971. edited by. The philosophy of language. London: Oxford University Press. 41. Searl, J.R. 1975. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts – In K.Gunderson (ed.) Language, Mind and Knowledge. Mineapolis: Cambridge University Press. 42. Searl, J.R. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts – In Cole and L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Symantics 3: Speech Act. New York: Academic Press. 43. Searle, John Rogers. 1976. A Classification of illocutionary Acts: Language in Society 5 pp.1-23. 44. Searle, John Rogers. 1979. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts: In The Philosophy of Language. pp. 141-155. edited by A.P. Martinich, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 45. Tillitt, B. and Bruder, M.N. 1995. Speaking naturally. Cambridge University Press. 46. Ting – Twomey, S. 1999. Communicating Cross Cultures. New York and London: The Guiford Press. 47. Thomas, I. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York, Longman. 48. Valdes, J.M (ed). 1995. Culture Bound. Cambridge University Press. 49. Wanning, E. 1991. Culture Shock! America. Times Editions Pre Ltd, Singapore. 50. Weirzbicka, A. 1985. Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 145 – 1978. 51. Weirzbicka, A. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs. Academic Press, Australia. 52. Weirzbicka, A. 1991. Cross – Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interation. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 53. Wright, A. 1987. How to Communicate Successfully. Cambridge University Press. 54. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. In Vietnamese 1. Đỗ Hữu Châu. 1995. Giáo trình giản yếu về dụng học. NXB Giáo dục. 2. Đỗ Hữu Châu. 1995. Các yếu tố dụng học của Tiếng Việt: Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ số 4/ 95. 3. Hoàng Tuệ. 1996. Ngôn ngữ và đời sống xã hội - văn hóa. NXB Giáo dục. 4. Nguyễn Văn Chiến. 1992. Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu và đối chiếu các ngôn ngữ Đông Nam Á. Trường Đại học Sư phạm Ngoại Ngữ Hà Nội. 5. Nguyễn Văn Chiến. 2000. Giao văn hóa và giảng dạy ngoại ngữ: Kỷ yếu hội thảo khoa học quốc gia: “Thành tố văn hóa trong dạy học ngoại ngữ”. Trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQG Hà Nội. 6. Nguyễn Quang. 1996. Một số phạm trù giao thoa văn hóa Việt Mỹ trong hoạt động giao tiếp. Tập san Ngoại Ngữ số 4/96. 7. Nguyễn Quang. 2002. Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa. NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. 8. Nguyễn Quang. 2003. Một số phương pháp nghiên cứu giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn hóa. Trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQG Hà Nội. . comments and conclusions in this thesis are largely based on: - reference to relevant publications - survey questionnaires - statistics, description and analysis of the collected data - personal. contribution of paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects of disparaging, however, they are not taken in to consideration.  The Vietnamese Northern dialect and American – English are chosen for contrastive. contrastive analysis.  The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires both in English and Vietnamese, based on socially-differentiated situations in which disparagement takes place